TRANSCRIPT: GINGRICH 3/30 RESPONSES TO REPORTERS IN SHANGHAI
(Says U.S. will defend Taiwan from military attack)

Shanghai -- Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Newt Gingrich (Republican of Georgia) told Chinese leaders in recent meetings that the United States will defend Taiwan from military attack.

Answering questions posed by American reporters in Shanghai March 30, Gingrich said he told Chinese officials "'We want you to understand: We will defend Taiwan' -- period. And the thing that was striking to me (was) we never got into an argument. They said, 'Okay -- noted.' And they would say, basically, 'Since we don't intend to attack, you won't have to defend. Let's go on and talk about how we're going to get this thing solved.' And I think that's very healthy."

Gingrich said he also spoke to his Chinese interlocutors about Hong Kong, telling reporters "I think the Chinese government is aware of how important creating two systems in one country in Hong Kong is."

Noting such recent developments in China as openly operating Protestant churches, village elections and the computer-enhanced Shanghai city council, Gingrich nevertheless commented: "None of this is perfect. They don't have a free press yet, they don't have true freedom yet. They don't have adequate freedom of religion. The people of China are mostly still terribly poor. The next superpower isn't China."

Summing up his visit, Gingrich said: "If you can be respectful but firm, you can get a long way talking with the Chinese. The more we honor their pride and national achievements, the easier it is to get them to start talking openly about democracy. China's an important country, a great regional power, worthy of our engagement."

Following is a transcript of Speaker Newt Gingrich's responses to American reporters:

(begin transcript)

NEWT GINGRICH
SPEAKER OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM AMERICAN REPORTERS
FOLLOWING HIS MEETING WITH THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS
AMERICAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN SHANGHAI

PORTMAN SHANGRI-LA HOTEL, SHANGHAI

SUNDAY, MARCH 30, 1997, 6:00 P.M.

(begin transcript)

QUESTION (Seth Faison, New York Times Shanghai Bureau Chief): So what did you learn?

SPEAKER GINGRICH: We learned a lot of things. I think the Chinese government is aware of how important creating two systems in one country in Hong Kong is. I think they would like to actually achieve that. I am not certain they understand what the nuances of that really are, because it's so outside -- the second system is so outside their experience that it's pretty hard, it's like someone who's never seen the ocean describing sailing. And I think that they're going to need a lot of help to make it work, but I think that there's a real potential that it could happen, that it could work, that you could have two systems in one country.

I think that they are more aware now that we would defend Taiwan, if it were militarily attacked. And I think they are much more giving a message of patience and long-term evolution. I thought it was very helpful.

This is an important country. One of the messages I just gave the Chamber people I'll repeat: It's important not to overstate what China is. China's a wonderfully rich civilization that goes back -- I was just in the museum here today -- that goes back about as far as the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Egyptians and Jews. But it's parallel to our civilization, it's not mystically different. It's a great civilization worthy of study in its own right.

The people of China are mostly still terribly poor. The coastal region is beginning to develop. Their economic growth is impressive but off of a very small base. Our economy will grow more in actual dollars this year than their economy. And so you have to go through these multiples for a long time. They're not -- you know, I spent a lot of the early '80s having people tell me that the next superpower was Japan. That seems less likely now. The next superpower isn't China, either. China's an important country, a great regional power, worthy of our engagement. When its billion and three hundred or two hundred million people are free, it will be an enormous increase in total human freedom on the planet. I believe that will happen. This is clearly a society in change. The village elections, I think, really do make a difference. I'll tell you, one of the most startling things I saw was the Shanghai city council, their local People's Congress. And if you haven't had a tour of that particular facility, it is worth going over and looking at the degree to which they have made that a video-computer legislator's dream. It is just amazing. And it's going to increase debate. It is perfectly designed for a legislative body to have real debate. I think that's good. The fact that, I think there now have been four governors defeated is not -- you know, I think there's a tendency to look at China and only focus on the negatives. Four governors who have been recommended by Beijing, as I understand it, were defeated by the local congresses, and rejected. And Beijing said, "Okay, I guess those folks aren't going to make it." Local village elections -- about fifteen percent are losing . Which, frankly, if you look at U.S. Congress patterns (laughter) over twenty or thirty years, that's not -- except for the '94 election, when we had a tremendous swing -- that's not a bad number. We can hardly come in here and say, "Well, that proves you aren't a free country."

Again, none of this is perfect. They don't have a free press yet, they don't have true freedom yet. They don't have adequate freedom of religion. But it was exhilarating this morning to be in a Protestant church that serves three thousand people every Sunday. My friends who went to a Catholic Mass -- John Boehner raised the issue of the Vatican. It wasn't knocked down. Li Peng said "We are negotiating at this very moment; we are going to try to work it out. We think it is important. There are some difficulties, one of which is that the Vatican recognizes Taiwan." But that was certainly not an answer you would have gotten ten years ago.

So -- I think constant pressure, constant friendship, constant dialogue; hold up our standards, which I think I've done by going to Hong Kong, going to Taiwan, making a speech in Beijing that was -- you know, I didn't flinch, but they didn't flinch either, because I wasn't hostile. If you can be respectful but firm, you can get a long way talking with the Chinese. And I think that's a key part of this. We are who we are. We believe passionately in freedom. To deal with us is to deal with a free people. Now, having said that, they are a great nation. They have every right to be proud of the reversion this summer. The more we honor their pride, and we honor their national achievements, the easier it is then to get them to start talking openly about democracy. We did not have, in nine meetings, any hostility. And I don't think they have any illusions of who I am in terms of how firmly I feel these things.

QUESTION (Seth Faison): What did you say about Taiwan that makes them understand more clearly about....?

SPEAKER GINGRICH: I said we accept the one-China policy. The one-China policy, as predicated in the Shanghai statement of 1972, and the Reagan statement of '82, both state on peaceful accession, peaceful discussion, peaceful decision -- and I said firmly, I said it again today with the person who is in charge of the talks, I said "We understand that, in principle, you will not renounce the right to use force. We want you to understand: We will defend Taiwan" -- period. And the thing that was striking to me -- I said it in four or five meetings -- we never got into an argument. They never said, "Well, you can't have that right, that's interference." They said, "Okay -- noted." And they would say, basically, "Since we don't intend to attack, you won't have to defend. Let's go on and talk about how we're going to get this thing solved." And I think that's very healthy. But the worst thing that could happen would be an absence of clarity, the Dean Acheson problem of 1950. That's why I've been very calmly -- but again, I've said it very pleasantly, it's been passive, it's been "We will defend." It hasn't been waving a saber, it's just been reminding that the saber's in the scabbard and available.

QUESTION (Steve Mufson, Washington Post Beijing Bureau Chief): Earlier you said something a little different about Taiwan, as I recall, some time ago, that you thought it should be independent. You seem to have modified that --

SPEAKER GINGRICH: I did not say I thought it should become independent. I said, at the time, when it looked like they might execute an American citizen, that Beijing should not assume we have no alternative except to tolerate them. They later on, in fact, released that American citizen, and everything calmed down. I was trying to send a signal -- there was a real danger, if you'll remember, a real feeling for about three weeks that they might execute a former Chinese citizen, now an American citizen, who had snuck back into the country. I thought that would have been a catastrophe for our relationship. And I was just trying to remind them: Everything in the Shanghai Communiqu�� is predicated on good relations between the two countries. It's not non-irrevocable. But there's no reason to revoke it. Every long-term historic evidence is that Taiwan and the People's Republic will in fact evolve a relationship over a long period of time.

QUESTION (Charles Hutzler, AP Beijing Bureau Chief): What if Taiwan were to declare its independence?

SPEAKER GINGRICH: I don't think Taiwan will, and I don't see any reason to discuss that. That's --

QUESTION (Charles Hutzler): Will you be telling them that, when you're there?

SPEAKER GINGRICH: Yes. But I don't think they will; there's no evidence, no indication.

(end transcript)